I'm a Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London, a writer here and there on this and that and strangely, one of the global experts on the metal scandium, one of the rare earths. An odd thing to be but someone does have to be such and in this flavour of our universe I am. I have written for The Times, Daily Telegraph, Express, Independent, City AM, Wall Street Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer and online for the ASI, IEA, Social Affairs Unit, Spectator, The Guardian, The Register and Techcentralstation. I've also ghosted pieces for several UK politicians in many of the UK papers, including the Daily Sport.

It’s very difficult to take a purportedly scientific paper which opens with the following phrase seriously.

The health effects of a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize (from 11% in the diet), cultivated with or without Roundup, and Roundup alone (from 0.1 ppb in water), were studied 2 years in rats. In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly.

Given that most mortal beings only have to go through dying the once it would seem that we are discussing the prevalence of reincarnation in rats. One can imagine interest in such research from various religious groupings but it would be difficult to describe the process as science. However, yes, that is a cheap shot: mocking non-native English speakers for their difficulties with the English language is such. What they mean is that more of the female rats on the GM diet died and died younger than the control group. Which is at least the beginnings of a piece of scientific research.

For yes indeed we really would like to know whether Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn (maize to Europeans) does cause health problems. We don’t think it does for several reasons. The multiple studies that have been done before looking at this very question for example. The fact that hundreds of millions of animals have been fed the stuff for years without anyone noticing anything odd about said animals. We’ve even got a nice natural experiment going on. Those humans in the Americas (North, South and Central) have been eating GM corn in vast quantities for a number of years now. Those humans in Europe have not. Again, we have not noted any difference in disease prevalence among the two groups that cannot be and is not explained by other factors.

But this paper claims to take us into new areas: instead of studying the rats only for 90 days as with earlier studies they studied them for their natural lifespan, around two years. They also claim to have found very different results from everyone else. Taken in the abstract this is fine: that’s what science is for. Finding out things that we didn’t know before.

Today, researchers led by Gilles-Eric Séralini at the University of Caen in France announced evidence for a raft of health problems in rats fed maize that has been modified to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup. They also found similar health problems in rats fed the herbicide itself.

The rodents experienced hormone imbalances and more and bigger breast tumours, earlier in life, than rats fed a non-GM diet, the researchers claim. The GM- or pesticide-fed rats also died earlier.

This kind of GM maize accounts for more than half the US crop, yet the French team says this is the first time it has been tested for toxicity throughout a rat’s lifespan (Food and Chemical Toxicology, DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005).

If this is true then we definitely want to know about it. Yes, we really do, whatever it might do to Monsanto’s share price or business. In fact especially given what it might do to that business.

The question is though, is it true? The politest thing we can say about the research so far is that they haven’t managed to prove that it is true, no. Scientists working in the area have been, how shall we put this, less than complimentary about some of the methods used:

Prof Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division, King’s College London, warned the type of rat used was very prone to mammary tumours, particularly when food intake was not restricted. And Dr Wendy Harwood, senior scientist, John Innes Centre, said: “The full data set has not been made available, but the findings do not contradict previous findings that genetic modification itself is a neutral technology, with no inherent health or environmental risks.

“Without access to the full data, we can only say that these results cannot be interpreted as showing that GM technology itself is dangerous. However they do indicate possible concerns over long-term exposure to Roundup that require further study.”

Tom Sanders, head of the nutritional sciences research division at King’s College London, noted that Seralini’s team had not provided any data on how much the rats were given to eat, or what their growth rates were.

“This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumors particularly when food intake is not restricted,” he said. “The statistical methods are unconventional … and it would appear the authors have gone on a statistical fishing trip.”

“The most evocative part of the paper is those pictures of tumorigenesis,” said Prof Maurice Moloney from Rothamsted Research, where much UK GM study is undertaken.

“They give the impression that this never happens in controls. I’d be surprised if it didn’t, but that ought to be explicitly demonstrated, and if there was a control that ended up showing similar kinds of tumorigenesis then a picture of that rat should be shown as well, just so we can see if there are any qualitative differences between them.”

There are more detailed complaints as well. Here’s one explanation of why the graphics in the paper are terribly misleading.

But the real killer criticisms come in the statistics they have used. Or rather, the standard statistical techniques that they have not used. You can see discussions of them here and here. The problem being that given the design of the experiment, the number of rats used and then the way the information has been presented to us we simply do now know, and cannot work out, whether this is a result of the effects of GM corn, Roundup or pure blind chance. And that is the point of the various statistical tests, to attempt to exclude pure blind chance as a cause of what is being observed.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

It’s not because the authors of the study are not American that they are biased. Their study was conducted according to scientific methods and until it is proved wrong by other INDEPENDANT studies and not by people paid by Monsanto and the likes I will refuse to buy GM food.

Well actually their study was not conducted using “scientific methods”. The test they performed does not have the statistical vigor to be valid. They also tried to use pictures of tumors of rats in a emotive manner rather than indicating scientific. Regulatory bodies perform these test in the interest of the public do not have the same finding. It is odd that you accuse other scientist of bias and having an agenda. The author of this paper has a long history of publishing dodgy science against GMOs. He also has book coming out this year. Excellent timing don’t you think?

Like Monsanto, Cargil etc. haven’t used the same type of tactics to ensure the idea that “GMO are as safe as Organics” and Ill give you an easy example: Dr.Ingram Olkin, head of the Department of Statistics, the author of that hoax “Annals of Internal Medicine” they claim to be “scientific proof” that GMO + roundup foods are as healthier as organic food happens to have a history as an anti-science propagandist worker for Big Tobbaco. Go here and you’ll see: http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_pm/22205.html This fella, who got big donations from CTR, helped in the “cigarettes do not harm humans” campaign, and thanks to Olkin articles like “The Case against Tobacco Is Not Closed: Why Smoking May Not Be Dangerous to Your Health!” were published. So, can we trust his studies? And I should also mention that Stanford, where the studies took place, has deep financial ties to Cargill among others, a company that we all know is a powerful proponent of GMOs and how much they’ve been campaigning against GMO Labeling proposition 37. The study consists on a multivariate statistical algorithm, an easy way to lie with statistics and confuse and eventually bored people with junk science. “Obviously, if one chooses convenient mathematical functions, the result may not conform to reality.”

Stanford receives half a billion dollars on secrets donation, from Monsanto and Cargill. Common sense: should they be trusted?

Just pointing out that with that same criteria, we can shoot both sides.

And I forgot to say I agree with you. It is political. Just like any scientific study, any celebrity’s opinion, any movie, any organization and so on. It is ALWAYS political and this is no secret. It is political because the one drop left of democracy is the act of voting. And if this helps voting Prop 37, then go for it. They are not even asking to banned GMO or Roundup, when they should. They are smarter than that, they know that at least this could be done. In the end, if their GMOs and roundup food are so good and healthy with no consequences, then…………….. Why are they so afraid of labeling it?

Dont you think if they were in fact “secret” donations that you would not know about them??

Also, Stanford has a loooonnnngggg history of being biased against GMO crops, and is a very ‘left of center’ type of school, if you get my drift. They want nothing more than to come out with a study that says GMO is the devil. But they cannot. Through true scientific and statistical methods it has been found, numerous times now, that GMO and Organic have the same nutrient contents and risk to the consumer. There is no difference.

A point that I keep bringing up, that nobody seems to connect with, is that every research animal in the US has been eating GMOs for well over a decade. These animals are closely monitored in animal colonies by trained professionals that include veterinarians and pathologists and biomedical researchers.

If there were problems in their food, that would be obvious. Not only would it be obvious, it would be shouted from the rooftops.

If you think there are horrible consequences for them eating GMOs, you’d also have to assume the last 10+ years of biomedical research was awry because of the food. And that’s absurd.

Well, thanks. I didn’t mean you personally, of course. But I have said this in discussions over the years and nobody seemed to realize the implications of this. Glad you heard me :) I appreciate it.

You could even contact managers of animal facilities all over the US and ask if they would have noticed effects. They monitor everything–including fertility, disease, behavior. They are trained to notice variations.

I used to work at one of those major mouse factories. I know how carefully they are monitored.

A bunch of Scientists say it’s very bad. You (and for really bad reasons) think it’s not. Who should I believe? All these douche bag lobbyists? Or actual Science. Naive idiot is what you are. How could you disprove Science? They treated the experiment with professionalism. All you have are CLAIMS and a THIRD PARTY ARGUMENT. You can’t be sure, they’re sure. Get your head out of your a**.